fuck it! just lost the post again just before i published it! i'm arse at this.....was just writing about a conversation i had with dave, but is not so fresh in my mind now, obviously....

we were discussing the compartmentalising of modern life, and whether this came about with industrialisation. it's a lot easier to have numerous different behaviours to slip in and out of if you live in a city, because you have to have hundreds of different contacts every day, from the random and casual to the intimate and planned. also, mostly people do not work from home, so work mode is very different from leisure mode; leisure modes will also vary dependent on where one is, and who one is with. this seems to me to be an analogue of the division of labour. huge industrial output (even if it occurs elsewhere these days) is what makes the city possible in its present form.

well what i was thinking is that ideas always function, they always do something - even completely theoretical or abstract ones, because they become part of the mental equipment that we filter the world through, and will colour the perception. the division of labour was an idea before it was put into practice, someone had to see production as a series of discrete tasks (this perception was what invented the manager, and made them necessary). i think that in the same way our economic model doesn't just shape our working lives....

i have wondered wether this explains the popularity of trainers and sportswear; it's obvious that people in the west aren't getting fitter, but sales of sportswear continue to rise. it could be possible that the whole idea of sport is a helpful metaphor for how the market wishes to see itself- sport is supposedly egalitarian (anyone can compete), whilst being meritocratic (excellence is rewarded); and combines personal goals with collective ones. i'm not saying that that is how sport actually works, i certainly know that it's not how the market works, but it's how both wish to see themselves. to go back to the sportswear, its like whole swathes of the population of the west are dressing and preparing for a marathon that they stand no chance of winning, or even completing; because it's fixed. 

the way we are and think is an expression of  our economic model - we are part of the superstructure. incidentally, this is why this blog is called purge/glut....i don't wish to mock or belittle those who have bulemia, i know its an appaling condition, but it seems to be the model of the boom/bust economic cycle written on the body. consumption/purge/consumption.....we live our lives oscillating between the poles of    novelty > nostalgia    or

                                                                                                                                promise > dissapointment   or

                                                                                                                           redemption > guilt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the broken image link below is my attempt to upload a picture, thought it worked, but i can't see it now! arse! thought i'd got the hang of it. well, never mind. spent the day listening to tindersticks and lisa germano - which was cheerful- but was heartened by the news of the weapons inspector of the iraq survey group, saying there is not and never were those elusive weapons. ha ha! doh! who'd have thought it? i sincerely hope that this makes blair's (and bush's) lives extremely difficult.

was going to do all sorts of things today, but didn't. including getting unpacked. so still sitting in a room with a clear space (just about) on the bed, and around the chair i'm sitting on, in front of the computer. the rest of the floor is boxes and bags.

spotted that this has been visited 21 times - i think that's cool, thankyou all for taking an interest. of course i suppose that it might be a few people who've all been here more than once, by mistake i should think. this isn't a very gripping posting.

the picture that should be below would have been cool -then again, maybe it's just me that cant see it? it's a pile of rubble photographed near my workplace in hackney wick east london. actually, i prefer the word "heap" to the word "pile"; pile implies some sort of organising principle, or at any rate someone actively putting stuff somewhere, whereas heap just seems to describe stuff that just got somewhere without anyone's volition- just because it has to be somewhere. it's like gravity is the only thing giving it any kind of shape at all, certainly not people. it's photographed under sdtreetlighting, which stripped out any colour it might have except for orange browns and muddy blacks.

the appearence of heaps like that around there is very commonplace, sometimes they are big enough to block roads. rubble from building sites and general crap takes effort and money to get rid of in the authorised manner, so it gets dumped. but it's not like there's a deliberate decision to do it, these are heaps not piles, so no one's building barricades; it's just a sort of default position that probably doesn't get thought about much.

i think it shows matter, just basic physical stuff, in a fairly true form as itself, without too much interference. i think it does this a lot more than so called nature, which always stimulates a whole load of sentimental baggage.

on the subject of heaps, philip guston exhibition starts very soon, if it didn't today, at the royal academy (some of his work can be seen on http://www.artchive.com/artchive/ftptoc/guston_ext.html). he was a master at portraying the physicality of stuff, including the paint he used - the images seem to grow out of his handling of the paint. in his paintings though, the stuff is made from people, but with the same dumb presence of a heap of rubble.

i moved house - am now sitting in my new room writing this. i painted it red, which everyone said was a bad idea, my friend and flatmate dave told me that "we're monkeys, and primates find red unsettling" but as yet i don't have a problem with it, it's sort of womblike; or publike which is even better- warm and enveloping. what i haven't done however, is to really get down to unpacking any of my stuff yet, apart from making the bed....it's funny to see your stuff just piled up like that, it looks like crap, not familiar, or better, half-familiar like the stuff in flea markets. it's just to do with seeing it out of context i suppose, not arranged or given any order, which is what would make it personal.

there was an occasion a couple of years ago, when i was on my way home on a night bus, blind drunk and musing to myself about keys...(or maybe that was after, i don't remember) but anyway i concluded that in a city the size of london with however many millions of people living there,  a lot of them with their own front doors with a yale doorkey; it follows that because there are only finite variations in the shape of that key, there is a chance of at least one other door my key would fit,if i should stumble across it. i staggered off the bus and opened the door to my flat, and the lights were out, i couldn't find the lightswitch and somehow the place smelled different. i wandered roumd for a bit in the dark making out the shapes of things with my fingertips and the slight variations in shadow that i could percieve in the streetlight that seeped in through the curtains. and i thought: whose is this crap? why did they bother to collect it, arrange it, display it, use it? it really felt that i had somehow chanced upon the other flat in london that my key would open, and the life there made no sense to me, as i could see it mapped out in the objects there. of course it did eventually dawn on me that it was my flat, but that feeling never entirely went away after that. it was one of the reasons that i finally left that place, and the person that i shared it with.

i've thought that the process of leaving, once you've made up your mind to but haven't yet done it, is a sort of defamiliarisation, like looking at that person or place through an inverted telescope.

so apart from moving, have been working mainly, which is why my stuff is still unpacked. busy time at the moment. i have a confession to make- should it be a confession? don't know if i should feel ashamed. anyway, the confession- i work in fashion. as the assistant to the designer of a ready to wear label. contrary to many people's opinion, it is far from glamorous or pampered - it is extremely hard work that often involves 18 hour days all week. that statement has to be balanced, of course with the acknowledgement that many people in the world work those sort of hours all the time all their lives, with no chance of recognition reward or respite, which are things that we at least have a chance of getting; it's why we work so hard. so i take it back- we are priveliged and pampered. anyway, busy time, we're preparing for london fashion week, and have just returned from doing a fashion show in berlin, which was very cool- the city, not the show, which wasn't- as i'd never been there before.

berlin reminded me of the remarks that i made about london in my last posting- as far as i could see, gentrification is running wild there in the same way as i saw, and am seeing happen here.

1. the way that it happens is the same: an area with once desirable housing falls on hard times: this can happen for a number of reasons, lack of transport links, other areas becoming fashionable, unpopular developments around it, social change (i think probably all these factors were in play in west berlin)
2. the area becomes cheaper, rented property as the owners become absentee landlords or turn the properties over to the council or agencies. this means often that it also becomes more ethnically diverse. maintenence is neglected, due to landlords being absent, or the low returns on renting the properties, also because of the disenfranchisement of the local community.
3. properties become derelict. squatters move in, the availability of cheap or free space and a bohemian ambience attract artists, and other middle class types (but jobless). the other important thing to note is that these people are young. the indigenous community is likely to be old -one of the most powerless groups 
4. young professional middle class types "discover" the area (website designers, film companies, publishing, advertising, fashion) attracted by the bohemian ambience and diversity of lifestyles which they can use as inspiration- and it makes them feel "edgy and urban". this is something that can be packaged.
5. rents rise, estate agencies appear, squatters are evicted, as are the existing tenants, to make way for refurbishment.others leave as the rent rises. the small bars and./or art galleries dissapear, to be replaced with tarted up versions of themselves. larger businesses move in. public art is commisioned to celebrate the qualities of the area which are being erased. multiculturalism is celebrated as the area becomes increasingly white.
6. owner/occupiers move in. transport links are created. it may change it's name, or start calling itself a "village".

there is more - actually a lot more. and i will certainly write more about berlin next time. for now i'm tired and i think i'll go to bed soon

 

well, that was christmas/newyear....was pretty good as they go- worked so hard 2003 that it was great to sit round drinking eating and watching loads of t.v. other years when i've had more leisure probably didn't appreciate it as much, what's the big deal of a holiday when you just end up doing what you do most of the time anyway? but this time it was great, and now just on the cusp of moving house, tomorrow, in fact.

this is a big deal as i've been no fixed abode for the past two years approx- this was mostly my own doing, i stopped trying, to be honest...and i've been bloody lucky, people -especially my girlfriend- have been very tolerant, and put me up. it's true, finding anywhere to live in london when you have no money is very difficult, but i could have tried harder. i just didn't feel that i could. there's a sense of entitlement that some people have (quite rightly, up to a point) that somehow i didn't get, and i think that sense helps with such things....i have been reliant on other people's goodwill. i (mostly) have not had too much of a problem with this- no one is immune from dependence, it doesn't matter who you are, we all live off someone else...

it's just that our particular economic model requires the idea of the autonomous, self supporting individual as it's basic unit. we have to exercise personal choice, informed by "enlightened self-interest" as both consumers and voters. these are the two main points of engagement that we are meant to have- if we acknowledge that our decisions are not entirely our own, and are informed by necessity - that is if we are all in some way slaves to something outside ourselves - then the edifice starts to crumble.

we are all slaves, and i don't mean just to the sinister military/industrial complex or whatever it's called these days. the language of self expression, or transcendence, or self development, is also the language of slavery...to achieve goals or aspirations, "improving oneself", achieving one's dreams, even various forms of (frequently spurious) liberation; all of these involve turning yourself into your own instrument - a vehicle through which to achieve - which is a form of slavery. the other question that always occurs to me on this as well is: if you are improving/realising/actualising/transcending yourself; then who is doing the transcending? which is the more authentic?.....(at this point i probably vanish up my own arse).

so anyway at this point i'm scared- looking forward to having my own space, my own front door, but money worries me...i've let a lot of things slide over the past couple of years, debts pile up.. i wonder if i can keep it together; it's amazing how easy it is to let go and drift.  as the above rant about aspiration or slavery might show, i've stopped believing in a lot of stuff to the point where it can be crippling.i recognise that these thoughts don't make it easier to live, or rather make it harder to find a valid place to stand, but i don't doubt that they have some form of truth (i  got to broadcast a far more elegant version of that, a text piece called WASTE TIME, on resonance fm, a highly recommended experimental london radio station, which also broadcasts on the net) .

so, moving in with my mate dave, into a pretty small flat, just down the road from my girlfriend's in bethnal green. london has gone strange these days, i grew up here, and lived here as an adult, then went away. coming back three years ago, it wasn't the same place. it's become rich. i remember, from the 70's and 80's, a decaying, rather gothic place which had large tracts that no one would go near (mostly places where i was living). there was the rich, or upwardly mobile, but they kept to their ghettos, so it wasn't a problem - they left people alone. now the place is their fucking playground. what gets called urban regeneration looks suspiciously like making the city safe for property developers. i've seen this regeneration at work - i lived in notting hill in the early '80's, it was cheap flats and bedsits for the poor, students, unemployed. also, it was genuinely a multicultural area. it took less than two years to make it into the (white) theme park that it is today. after notting hill, i moved to islington (ha ha)....then stoke (smug) newington (theme park, someone's going to set a film round there soon i'm sure, it'll be in the notting hill mould, maybe they already have)...then clapton- which i think is going the same way, but i imagine it's going to take some time.

it seems that somehow the poor have forfeited their right to live in inner london- they can't afford the rent, and council flats are still being sold off. and the idea that has been floated by the mayor amongst others, to ensure subsidised housing for "key workers": nurses, teachers, firefighters, police, is an insult - it restates what i would have hoped was the discredited division between the "worthy" and the "unworthy" poor. it seems to imply that those who look after the middle classes when they're ill, who protect their property from crime, save their property from fire, or teach their children can stay. everyone else can move out to the suburbs and commute in to do their minimum wage jobs cleaning offices or flipping burgers.